Mumbai Court July 1940 Judgments
Upendra Nath Bose Vs. Lall
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1940
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR381
Russell, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna by which it was ordered that the award hereinafter mentioned should be filed and made a decree of the Court.The relevant facts leading up to this litigation are as follows:--2. The appellant, one Upendra Nath Bose, had in the year 1908 purchased in execution sale the proprietary right in the Village Raitar in the Patna district subject to incumbrances. In the year 1912 his friend, Ishwari Prasad, advanced to him a sum of Rs. 50,000 for the purpose of partially clearing off the incumbrances and upon the terms that he should have an option to acquire a half share in the village in lieu of the repayment of his loan. This option he exercised in or about the year 1914. No conveyance was executed; the matter continued to rest on contract, but thenceforward he enjoyed a half share of the profits of the village.3. This state of affairs continued until the death of Ishwari which occurred in the year 1924. He ...
Tag this Judgment!The Punjab Co-operative Bank, Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1940
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR372
Viscount Maugham, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, dated February 3, 1938, delivered on a reference under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922) by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab, North-West Frontier and Delhi Provinces.2. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the bank) is a joint stock company, incorporated in the year 1905, carrying on the business of banking. The objects for which the bank was established are set out in paragraph 3 of its Memorandum of Association and include-(A) To carry on in India and elsewhere the trade or business of banking in all its branches, and to transact and da all matters and things incidental thereto, or which may at any time hereafter be usual in connection with the business of banking) on dealing in money or securities for money.Paragraph 82 (i) of the articles of association provides that the directors-may invest funds of the Company upon such securities or investments as ...
Tag this Judgment!Shripadgouda Venkangouda Aparanji Vs. Govindgouda Narayangouda Aparanj ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom77; (1940)42BOMLR1185
Wassoodew, J.1. This appeal arises from an action instituted by the plaintiff-appellant in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Dharwar to set aside, on the ground of fraud and false representation, a decree upon an award passed in Suit No. 53 of 1931 between the parties on April 1, 1932. That decree was passed by the same Court in which it is now challenged. The former suit was instituted by the defendant to recover Rs. 12,000 with interest upon a promissory-note executed in his favour on April 22, 1930. The plaintiff, who was the defendant in that suit, had filed a written statement in which he contended inter alia that he was liable to pay only Rs. 2,000, a debt due from the family and contracted by his eldest brother Pralhad in his lifetime while he was the manager of the family, that the balance of the claim was fraudulent, and that the promissory-note was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence. After that defence was filed and before the hearing com...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Vidyagauri Vs. Chaturdas Ambaram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1940
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR876
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this appeal the plaintiff as the daughter of one Vrandavandasji, who died in 1935, sued to establish the will of her father, and also alleged that defendant No. 2 was not his widow. Both those points were decided against her in the lower Courts, and they are not open in second appeal. Mr. Justice Sen dismissed the appeal summarily. The appellant in this Court contends that, as a reversioner and as a daughter entitled to maintenance, she can sue to administer the estate, even assuming that the will is invalid and that defendant No. 2 is the widow. Both the tower Courts held that a reversioner could not sue to administer the estate, and I think on principle that is right. A reversioner under Hindu law has no vested interest. She has a right to sue the widow, who is the absolute owner subject to certain limitations, as to disposition and so forth, in certain cases which have been established in the Courts, for example, if the widow commits waste. But except f...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Krishnaji Chandole Vs. Vithu Govind Panhale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom65; (1940)42BOMLR1057
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the Assistant Judge of Sholapur which raises a question of law. The material facts are that on-June 23, 1924, one Krishnaji, the father of the present appellants, obtained a mortgage instalment decree, and his successors are still trying to enforce it. In 1926, and again in 1927, darkhasts were filed by Krishnaji or his heirs, which would have the effect of keeping the decree alive. On January 23, 1930, the guardian of the present appellants, who are the heirs of Krishnaji, assigned the decree to one Bawadhankar by deed, and in 1930, and again in 1934, the assignee filed darkhasts, which, if effective, would again have the effect of keeping the decree alive. In 1932, a creditor of Krishnaji filed a suit against the present appellants and their assignee for a declaration that the assignment to Bawadhankar was void against creditors, and on June 30, 1934, an order was made in favour of the plaintiff. The exact terms of the ord...
Tag this Judgment!Raneegunj Coal Association Ltd. Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1940
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR403
Russell, J.1. The point for decision on this appeal is the true construction of one clause in an agreement dated January 16, 1919, and made between the appellants and the respondents. By the agreement the appellants (called therein 'the sellers') sell to the respondents (called therein 'the buyers') the output of coal from certain seams in their collieries, for a period which commenced on April 1, 1921, and which has still a few years to run.2. The clause in question is the 4th clause, which1 runs as follows:--In the month of January immediately preceding the commencement of a year (which term, shall for the purpose of this agreement be deemed to meatn a period of twelve calendar months commencing on the first day of April and ending on 'the thirty-first day of March) the price payable by the buyers for the coal to be delivered during such year shall be settled and adjusted at eight annas per ton above the price payable under or in respect of the then latest contract for the purchase o...
Tag this Judgment!T and J Brocklebank Ltd. Vs. Noor Ahmode
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1940
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR450
Wright, J.1. This is an appeal from the amended decree of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengali (exercising its appellate civil jurisdiction), dated January 25, 1938, allowing an appeal and cross-appeal from, a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of the Fourth Court, 24 Parganas at Alipore, in Money Suit No. 96 of 1934 dated July 31, 1935.2. The question for determination is whether or no the respondent is entitled to recover damages from the appellants in respect of an illness from which he suffered while, and since, serving as a lascar on board the appellants' steamship Markhor on a voyage from Calcutta to ports on the east coast of North America and the United Kingdom in and about trie months of September and October, 1933.3. The claim was for damages for the negligence of the Master or the Chief Steward of the Markhor or both of them for not taking proper steps to deal with the illness of the respondent. The action was originally brought not only against ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahalingappa Chanmallappa Gotkindi Vs. Shankarayya Gurushantayya Hirem ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom300; (1941)43BOMLR600
Divatia, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff in a suit to recover Rs.16,000 with interest due on a simple mortgage for Rs.8,000 passed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the deceased father of the plaintiff on August 29, 1919. The mortgaged property comprised eight survey numbers one of which was revision survey No. 94. On February 1, 1921, defendant No. 1 took a tagai loan from the Government for improving his field, survey No. 94, and for that purpose he mortgaged to the Government another land of his, namely, revision survey No. 11/1. He failed to repay that tagai loan, and as a result Government sold survey No. 94 in 1932 when it was purchased by defendant No. 4 for Rs. 1,525 and he passed a kabulayat to the Government for that number. Thereafter the appellant brought this suit on January 3, 1936, to recover the amount due on the mortgage. The main issue was whether the plaintiff could hold survey No. 94 in suit liable for the suit debt in view of the fact that the land was...
Tag this Judgment!Yeshwant Bhikaji Vilankar Vs. Sadashiv Govind Arekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom414; (1940)42BOMLR881
Broomfield, J. 1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Lokur, and the question is as to the maintainability of an interpleader suit. The plaintiff, who is now the appellant, alleged that he took some land belonging to defendant No. 2 on an oral lease on November 1, 1927. He paid rent to defendant No. 2 in accordance with the lease up to July, 1935. He then received notices both from defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2, somewhat superfluously as it would seem, informed his tenant that |ie was not to pay the rent to defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 demanded that the rent should be paid to him. The plaintiff then brought the suit and he said in the plaint that he had no knowledge as to how defendant No. 1 claimed the land, that the demands of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were opposed to each other, that both made demands for the rent from him, and that he was, therefore, compelled to make them both defendants and bring the suit.2. The trial Court dism...
Tag this Judgment!S.R.M.C.T.S.S.P.A. Chettyar Firm Vs. U on Maung
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1940
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR459
M.R. Jayakar, J.1. The question raised by this appeal is whether a mortgage by deposit of deeds made in favour of the appellants within two years of an adjudication in insolvency under circumstances mentioned below was voidable against the respondent (the receiver of the insolvent's estate) under Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920. The District Court held that it was not voidable, and the appellate Court that it was The material portion of Section 53 is as follows:--Any transfer of property not being a transfer made ... in favour of a purchaser or incumbrancer in good faith and for valuable consideration shall, if the transferor is adjudged insolvent on a petition presented within two years after the date of the 'transfer, be voidable as against the receiver and may be annulled by the Court.2. The insolvent, L.M.R.S.M. Somasundaram Chettyar, carried on business as Chettyar at Kyaikto in the district of Thaton in Burma. In 1931, he left Burma for India. The business was t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »